Science Professionalism

Introduction to Scientific Research

Scientific research refers to the research on the basis of health which has high ethical standards. Scientific research has been on the ethical standards that are founded and established by the researchers of the health institution. Scientific fraud is a behavior of misrepresentation or deception of the work that belongs to another person and also violates the code of ethical standards (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). The impact of scientific fraud can include the loosing of the audience of a particular researcher. In this report, we will have a look on the one of the cases of scientific fraud. How the scientific fraud manipulates the policies of Australian Code for the Conduct of Research. Here the taken example is of the potential fraud case of Jonathan Pruitt who is the holder of one of the reputable Canada 150 Research Chairs. We will also find the ways to prevent the scientific fraud and the ways should have been taken previously to prevent the act.

Scientific Fraud Case of Jonathan Pruitt

Jonathan Pruitt is the holder of one of the prestigious and reputed Canada 150 Research Chairs. He has fabricated the irregularities of the data. The co authors of Jonathan Pruitt claimed that the data he provided to them contain the irregularities and the duplication of data. The two papers have been retracted that was co authored by Jonathan Pruitt. Jonathan Pruitt is considered to be as a star of McMaster University (McKenna & Gray, 2018). The scientist of McMaster University that is Jonathan Pruitt and also a holder of one of the reputed and prestigious Canada 150 Research Chairs now facing the inspection on the two papers which were claimed to have duplicity of the data in it and it manipulated the irregularities of data. This fraud case came in front of the media when the two peers analyzed and reviewed the study. The collaborators of the research also made the statement publically that the data is used in the papers are duplicate and also a misconduct of the regulations. His reputation has been torn and he is facing more retractions for all of his researches. He has included the duplicated data in his research.

Data duplication refers to copy the already built data and presentation whereas the primary data is the data that is found and collected by the raw data like interviews (Pennock, 2018). When a researcher, collects the data on its own by interviews or by studying any research that is called a primary or a genuine data collected. If a researcher ignores the code of conducts for the research and copy the data from another source and the studies that have already been done by someone else is the duplicate data. Here Jonathan Pruitt, misconduct the ethical standards of researchers by copying the data from another source and it’s a stealing of someone’s research. As a result Jonathan Pruitt has to retract the most of the papers of his studies. The prestigious job at McMaster University and the reputed Canada 150 Research Chairs are both on risk for him (Resnik, 2011). Now the policy of research integrity of Mc Master requires the administration or the management to initiate or to start the inquiry of investigation for the allegations academic misconduct.

Jonathan Pruitt also known as the spider man after his initiative of research by using a spider. He used the spider for his research and to test the evolution of the behavioral differences amid individuals. He wanted to test how individuals respond to the social and environmental pressures (Voarino et al., 2019). For this act, he also gained the attention of media. The major reason of attention of media to this act because it was considered as a relevant act for the better understanding of how the communities of organisms make them survive (Pennisi, 2020).

The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct refers to principle and the set of policies that have characteristics of honesty, transparency and have ethical research culture. It helps in building a framework for the high quality research which is conducted by the responsible research. It also helps in constructing the community trust and research credibility in the achievement of research (Bhat et al., 2017). The first and the foremost responsibility are to ensure or to provide the integrity and the honor lies with institutions and individual researchers. The code helps to provide the ethical way of doing research and to set the principles that should be followed by the researchers and institutions. There is a Guide of Managing and Investigating the Potential Breaches that helps in investigating the with the preferred outlines model of the institution.

There are many characteristics of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct such as honesty, transparency, respect, fairness, recognition and many more. Breach is also a part of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct. Breach refers to the researcher and the institution failed to follow all the principles of the code and fail to meet the responsibilities (Neuroskeptic et al., 2020). Breach can be single and there can be several breaches. In the case of Jonathan Pruitt, the principles that were breached from the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct are:

  • Honesty: In the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct, honesty is the major part of the practices and the principle that are followed. An institution or a researcher should convey the research and the study truthfully. The responsibility of the researcher and for an institution is to provide the accuracy in the presentation. The institution should always mention and present the conducting and the reports of the research to its audience.
  • Transparency: Transparency is one of the important characteristics to conduct the research. By its own name, it’s understandable that the data should be transparent to the audience. An institute or the researchers are responsible to provide the methodology that by using what method, the data has been created (Cassiman, 2019). Researchers should disclose and also manage conflicts. The major responsibility is to provide that where the data has been found and the interest of research methodology should be shared with the audience of an institution and of the researcher.

So, these were the two major principles which were misconduct by Jonathan Pruitt. We can use some measures to prevent the scientific fraud that are:

  • Ensuring the proper policies for the academic research and should follow them strictly while researching.
  • The process rigor should be highly enforced.
  • There should be right environment to work with rules and regulations, as the right environment of work influence the individual to complete the task with honesty.
  • Communicating about the expectations for the accuracy in accounting of the data collected and time spent on the research activities (McCabe et al., 2001).
  • Establishment of the integrity in the work place while researching.
  • And the most important measure is to setting the standard with high quality of testing of the research that has been done by the researcher and the institution.

Conclusion on Scientific Fraud Case of Jonathan Pruitt

In this report, we explored and discussed about the scientific frauds that what the key factors which includes the scientific factor are. Then we read about the real fraud case of Jonathan Pruitt that how he duplicated the documents and misconduct the regularities of the Australian Code for the Research Conduct. There were many principles which were humiliated by Jonathan but for the understanding two have been explained that is honesty and transparency. The scientific fraud can be stop by taking some measures in the workplace.

References for Scientific Fraud Case of Jonathan Pruitt

McKenna, L., & Gray, R. (2018). The importance of ethics in research publications. Collegian, 25(2), 147-148.

Pennock, R. T. (2018). Beyond research ethics: How scientific virtue theory reframes and extends responsible conduct of research. In Cultivating Moral Character and Virtue in Professional Practice (pp. 166-177). Routledge.

Bhat, A., Shah, A., & Sherighar, S. G. (2017). Instructions to prospective authors by Indian biomedical journals: An opportunity to promote responsible conduct of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(2), 117-123.

Voarino, N., Couture, V., Mathieu-Chartier, S., Bélisle-Pipon, J. C., St-Hilaire, E., Williams-Jones, B., ... & Gauthier, P. (2019). Mapping responsible conduct in the uncharted field of research-creation: A scoping review. Accountability in research, 26(5), 311-346.

Dal-Ré, R., Bouter, L. M., Cuijpers, P., Gluud, C., & Holm, S. (2020). Should research misconduct be criminalized?. Research Ethics, 1747016119898400.

Pennisi, E. (2020). Prominent spider biologist spun a web of questionable data. Retrieved from https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6478/613.summary

Cassiman, A. (2019). Spiders on the World Wide Web: cyber trickery and gender fraud among youth in an Accra zongo. Social Anthropology, 27(3), 486-500.

Neuroskeptic.(2020). Social Spiders and Science Fraud. Retrieved from https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/social-spiders-and-science-fraud

Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 1(10), 49-70.

Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics &Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Science Assignment Help

Get It Done! Today

Applicable Time Zone is AEST [Sydney, NSW] (GMT+11)
Not Specific >5000
  • 1,212,718Orders

  • 4.9/5Rating

  • 5,063Experts

Highlights

  • 21 Step Quality Check
  • 2000+ Ph.D Experts
  • Live Expert Sessions
  • Dedicated App
  • Earn while you Learn with us
  • Confidentiality Agreement
  • Money Back Guarantee
  • Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free
  • Let's Start

Get
500 Words Free
on your assignment today

Browse across 1 Million Assignment Samples for Free

Explore MASS
Order Now

Request Callback

Tap to ChatGet instant assignment help

Get 500 Words FREE
Ask your Question
Need Assistance on your
existing assignment order?